Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want

We live on a finate planet, this much we can all agree on. The Earth has a very specific amount of resources, and an all too definate carrying capacity.

Humanity, on the other hand, at least, is capable of potentially infinate expantion. Human population has been expanding steadily, with a few exceptions, ever since we have first achived a certain standard of living, several thousand years ago. What is more, human expantion has become exponential, meaning that with each generation, the numrical value of population expantion increases. What this means, effectively, is that the human population expands at an ever-increasing rate. Unfortunately, our planet is not expanding to meet us, so this population growth will be checked, sooner or later, as we run out of the resources needed to sustain ourselves. Essentially, this means either mass starvation, or a war big enough to wipe out a really substantial percent of the population, or, the third option, the deliberate curbing of our insatiable appitite for reproduction.

The argument that a limit on population growth would be against the basic rights of life is a legitemate one. The reality, however, is that is we leave our population growth as unsustainably huge as it is currently, we must eventually come to a point when the carrying capacity of the earth will be outstripped, and mass deaths will follow. I think that we can all agree that this is not an appropriate option. Humanity must, in some way, prevent itself from growing much more, or face the concequences. Concequences which, realisticly, could include the destruction of civilization, nuclear war, complete economic breakdown, or any number of other nightmarish situations.

Population control does not necisarially have to entail completely forbididng any family from having a second or third child. Extra children could be offered up for adoption. Policies inacted in China, such as cheap health care and education, or tax reductions, for single-child families could encourage compliance without demanding it.

Problems do asise in developing countries, such as India, where populations are expanding rapidly, but regulation would be extremely difficult, but these are not insurmountable. However, it is the rich and developed countries, who, incidently consume by far the most resources, who should be leading the way on this initiative. Any regulation of family size is never going to be a popular, easy or even very moral expidenture, but it is, unfortunately, one which may be necisary to preserve humanity from its own virility.

It may not be sustainable but these population control programs are monumentally ineffective: In the stead of reducing poverty, the poor to rich ratio, they 'in practice' work to increase it, since:

a)ONLY/MAINLY literate/educated/relatively-well-off populations understand the literature/medium of these messages and start implementing population control in their homes(for example they won't have more than two kids, even though they can easily/loftily sustain/educate/train/rear ten very potentially productive young ones)

B)In homes where parents are barely feeding themselves(eg. living on subsistence) the presiding amalgamate idea:

1) That a child has one mouth to feed but two working hands
2) that children provide an entertaining from from relief extreme boredom from a long day of assembly-line-type work
3)that sex and obstreperous progeny are both effective antidepressant/distractions from the woes of living on/off compounding credit because of a high marginal propensity to consume

stimulates reproductive activity,(I reiterate) in exactly the homes where abstinence should be practiced.

Therefore,
if there is a law against having more than a number of kids,then:
1) The people who need to abide by it, will(Just as they currently ignore population control programs) ignore it.

2)The people who should have kids because their potential progeny have a future will not have kids, because they understand and care for the law(are straight-laced law-abiding citizens).

Conclusively; the population control problem will continue to escalate.
the ratio of poor to rich increases
and we're all in one big mess.